Europe

At PMQs today, David Cameron was asked about the decision by all Liberal Democrat MPs to collectively defy a three-line whip, and abstain from voting on a motion defending Cameron's EU treay veto. Although Cameron didn't elaborate further on the Liberal Democrat position, he did express his gratitude to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who had decided to table the motion due to the veto being in the "vital interest" of the British people.

Yesterday morning, Nick Clegg had said that Liberal Democrat MPs should vote in favour of the motion, but swiftly did a u-turn in the evening and ordered them to abstain. Only one Liberal Democrat MP, Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) spoke at the debate, saying the outcome of the Brussels summit was "not a good one". Horwood also attacked eurosceptic Tory MPs, saying:

"The process is still a long way from complete and there are quite a few obstacles in its path, some of them sitting in this Chamber, I think."

David Cameron addressed the House of Commons about his decision to veto the EU Treaty. Here is his statement in full:

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council.

I went to Brussels with one objective: to protect Britain’s national interest. And that is what I did.

Let me refer back to what I said to this House last Wednesday.

I made it clear that if the Eurozone countries wanted a treaty involving all 27 Members of the European Union we would insist on some safeguards for Britain to protect our own national interests. Some thought what I was asking for was relatively modest. Nevertheless, satisfactory safeguards were not forthcoming and so I didn’t agree to the Treaty.

Mr Speaker, let me be clear about exactly what happened, what it means for Britain what I see happening next.

"Orderly but rapid break up would be the least cost option. It would liberate the countries allowed out, and permit them to adjust their competitiveness by a devaluation which would be swift and easier to sell than large wage cuts. There is no foundation to the proposition that the EU would lose 10-50% of its output if they changed currencies. To my knowledge 87 countries have left currency unions since 1945. In most cases they have prospered more after exit. The successful break up of the 16 member rouble bloc could be the model."

8.30pm Philip Hollobone told Sky News:

"...we need to have a disorderly breakup so that the whole of Europe and the rest of the world economy can get back to significant economic growth in the future. This idea that we can prop up the eurozone in the next ten years with constant austerity is just not going to work."

6.45pm The leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, Martin Callanan MEP said:

"If there is any treaty change which creates European fiscal union then clearly that will radically effect the UK and that should be put to a referendum. That is what democracy demands, because we would be creating a fundamental change to the EU and our relationship with it. However, that could take years to complete. It might be a way to solve the next crisis - but not this one. That is why the focus should be on measures to address the issues at the heart of this crisis."

He said these would include "The casual one-size-fits-all approach that had undermined the euro from its foundations", "The massive economic imbalance between its prosperous and economically-disciplined members and those which were debt-ridden and financially dysfunctional", "The over-regulation which hampered wealth-creation and innovation and encouraged a dependency culture in struggling states."

5.30pmPaul Waugh reports that Edward Leigh said the following in a Westminster Hall debate this afternoon:

"We have had enough of reading of British prime ministers over the last 20 to 30 years in the days preceding a summit that 'they will stand up for the British national interest' and then coming back from a summit with a kind of Chamberlain-esque piece of paper saying, 'I have negotiated very, very hard, I have got opt-outs on this and that and I have succeeded in standing up for British interests'."

"I have no doubt that the PM will return with some form of a guarantee for Britain as the last thing Merkel wants is a referendum in Britain. If Britain succumbs, other countries may follow suit and the effect such an event would have on the markets would be damaging for Germany. After all, it’s all about Germany. A fiscal union of 17 EU members forming one new country and in effect a new trading block will have huge implications for Britain and British business. It's time we gave the British people their say via a referendum. The next two days will test the Prime Ministers courage and skills. If he misses this opportunity to grasp the nettle and give the British People their say, they may eventually make him pay with the one vote they will have."

4.15pm Nick Boles appeared on the Daily Politics show this afternoon, and argued:

"Today is the moment of maximum economic danger for Britain. Our retail sales are falling, manufacturing output is collapsing, Brazil has stalled, China has stalled. The entire global economy is sitting on the edge of an abyss and the urgent priority for the British people is to protect our economy and their jobs by getting this Eurozone crisis fixed. We need to repatriate powers but we need to come to that after we've saved our economy, not before. ... What I want David Cameron to do is to protect our economy, protect our jobs - mainly, because that's the thing that's under most threat from the Eurozone - protect the City of London, but he needs to help them get a solution to the Eurozone crisis so that the entire European economy doesn't fall apart. ... We are going to work out an entirely new kind of outer-tier relationship, and that is a big exercise, it's a very important exercise, and it offers big opportunities for Britain, but it's probably going to take two or three years - it's not the work of a weekend when the global economy is on the precipice."

3.30pm Sir Peter Tapsell told Radio 4:

"The fact is the French and German leaders have been meeting for weeks and weeks. I have very little doubt that they will not be able to solve the eurocrisis on Friday but it is very much in the British national interests that it should be solved. As we argued at the time of the Maastricht Treaty to think that you can have a single a interest rate for a whole variety of countries at different stages in their development. And that remains true today and although we opted out of the euro right from the beginning and very sensibly so, but we are affected by the euro and I feel really sceptical that they can solve to eurocrisis, I don’t expect it to survive. ... The reason why Europe is in crisis has to be traced back to the Maastricht Treaty. They then introduced a whole series of measures which weakened the European economy by comparison with those of the Far East and America and so on."

We reported more than a year ago that the United Kingdom would receive a 73rd MEP as part of the European Parliament's changes to various countries' representation as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.

Today, Anthea McIntyre was officially named as the new Conservative MEP for the West Midlands region, which was deemed to deserve an extra seat.

The Electoral Commission decided who would have won the seat had it been available in the 2009 European Parliamentary elections, and Miss McIntyre was identified as the correct candidate. She will serve the rest of the Parliamentary term, which expires in 2014.

Miss McIntyre runs her own business as a management consultant. She is married to Frank Myers and they live in Ross-on-Wye. She said:

"This is a great honour. I am looking forward to the challenges ahead, working hard for the interests of the people of the West Midlands."

Zac Goldsmith would rather be known by the term "effective backbencher", than "rebellious backbencher". In a BBC Hardtalk interview today with Zeinab Badawi, rebellion and party dissent over Europe and the environment, proved to be the main focus. Although critical of the Government over its handling of an EU referendum, Goldsmith insisted that he remained loyal to the party:

"I have voted with my party more than 90% of the time ... if that is anything other than loyal, then I think we need to rethink those terms"

However, Goldsmith indicated his delight for fighting political causes and holding the Government to account as a backbencher, rather than in the "hellish existence" of a junior minister. "I didn't stand for election in order to have a lobotomy and to be programmed by a party leader", he said.

Goldsmith defended the Government on environmental policy, saying it had been "unfairly chastised" and that "twice as many environmental commitments as anything else ... [are] being delivered". He praised both the Green Investment Bank, saying it was "a step in the right direction", and the Green Deal. Although the Government was "beginning" to understand the priority behind environmental policies, he said, the Green Investment Bank, however, was "not big enough, or soon enough", and it was essential that Treasury got "behind... and turbocharged" the Green Deal.

Yesterday in Parliament a debate was motioned, and passed unopposed without a vote, to approve a European document related to Croatia's joining of the European Union. Europe Minister David Lidington began the debate by speaking of enlargement more generally, saying that the Government has long been "a strong supporter of EU enlargement as an effective and dynamic agent of change ... the European Union will remain strong only if it is outward-looking and continues to grow".

EU accession, he said, "has helped to entrench democracy, the rule of law and human rights in parts of our continent where those values and traditions were crushed for most of the 20th century." Enlargement would "create stability, security and prosperity across Europe".

Lidington said that providing accession criteria had been met, it was important that EU membership should be available to any European country, whether it be Spain or Portugal, or a Balkan or eastern European nation. The Minister made reference to Margaret Thatcher's Bruges speech of 1988:

Strasbourg had even more of an Alice in Wonderland feel about it than usual this week, especially so when I sat down briefly to go through Thursday morning's press.

In the national file there was the Financial Times, clearly keen to cement its reputation as the Euro-federalists' bible, having a swipe at me and my colleagues under a headline "European Tories deal green blow to premier".

The article had swallowed wholesale the spin from a Labour press release effectively accusing us of being environmental thugs and vandals, simply because Conservative MEPs refused to support an attempt to further burden industry by unilaterally increasing the EU's carbon reduction target from 20 to 30 per cent. Notably, the FT was the only paper to run the release.

In my regional press file, a cutting from the Newcastle Journal. No political point-scoring here, only the desperately sad news that Rio Tinto Zinc is to close its Alcan smelting plant in Lynemouth, Northumberland with the loss of over 500 jobs.

Earlier this week John Baron MP called a debate in Westminster Hall to question UK participation in IMF bailouts of the Eurozone. Pasted below are extracts from what he, Mark Hoban MP and Mark Field MP said.

Endless bailouts and EU summits are not addressing the Eurozone's underlying uncompetitiveness: "Will additional IMF funding work? That will simply reinforce existing eurozone policy, which is itself fundamentally flawed. The existing policy simply does not address the core causes of the crisis, which are a lack of competitiveness and Governments spending too much. Debt is the problem, as I have said, not demand. We have had 14 or perhaps even 15 gatherings, conferences and summits to save the euro, but each has failed to address the core reason for the problem, which is a fundamental lack of competitiveness."

IMF packages usually rely on devaluation nut that option is not available inside the Eurozone: "Another reason why this policy will fail is that it fundamentally ignores the importance of devaluation to recovering economies. Usually, there are three elements in an IMF package: reduced spending, increased revenue and the ability to allow the currency to devalue. That last bit is important because a currency that devalues helps to take the strain off the economy. If an economy is deemed to be, say, 25% uncompetitive compared with its neighbours, allowing its currency to depreciate to about the same extent will go a long way towards taking the strain. If we cut off that option, that 25% gain in competitiveness can only really be brought about by cuts to public services, salaries and pension funds. That is simply not an option, and for that reason that makes those austerity packages so much worse."

The Eurozone, not the IMF should address its problems: "I question why the IMF is getting involved in these bail-outs. The eurozone is a currency union. If a state within the United States got into trouble, the IMF would not be expected to ride to the rescue. The same should be true of the eurozone. I contend that Greece is not economically sovereign; it has no central bank; it cannot set interest rates; it has no currency; and it cannot devalue. I would go so far as to question whether Greece is even politically sovereign. At least in the United States, the people can elect the governor of individual states. That is not happening in Greece and Italy."

The Bundesbank should use its reserves to save the Eurozone: "What makes the situation even worse is that the eurozone has resources that could do much more to help the situation. For example, the Bundesbank has reserves of £180 billion, £130 billion of which is in gold, and gold is going up in price. That is in stark contrast to our country and the action of the previous Government, who sold gold at near the bottom of the market."

The UK government is showing no leadership: "The Government seem to have fallen in behind the French and Germans in this cry that somehow we must save the euro. I suggest to the Minister that that is economic clap-trap. Binding divergent economies into a single currency without full fiscal union was, and remains, a massive mistake. Similar thinking warned us of the perils of exiting the exchange rate mechanism, yet look what happened then: almost to the day that we exited the ERM, our recovery started and it was a very strong recovery."

Last week, the action was all happening in Brussels. Two summits, countless meetings, media galore. The European Parliament, however, was in Strasbourg!

The mood was sombre but strangely detached from the historic events happening 250 miles up the road. Actually, I’m not sure our being in Brussels would make much difference – the current Eurozone crisis is more of an academic discussion in the parliament about whether we need more ‘community method’ rather than the intergovernmental method. One poster I recently saw was advertising a hearing for the Green group, with the title: “Never waste a crisis”!

After the Sunday summit failed to reach agreement on the terms of a new bailout fund, I began to hear something that strangely I’d not heard before: people openly talking about the demise (or at least the reduction in size) of the Eurozone. Of course, they would never dream of saying such things publicly. Heaven forbid that anyone would question the Euro project.

So, with usual arrogance and aloofness, the parliament went about its business. As EU leaders prepared to meet in Brussels, we in Strasbourg voted on the EU’s budget for 2012.

Of course, the parliament – once again – voted for an increase of over five percent. They still really don’t get it.

After last year’s 2.9 percent rise, this is just another slap in the face for the taxpayers in countries who pay the EU’s bills.

Last week's Eurozone deal was only ever going to be a sticking plaster solution. The level of Greek debt went from deadly before the deal to still murderous afterwards. The overnight news that the Greek people will get a chance to reject that deal in a referendum will deeply unsettle global markets.

The leader of Tory MEPs, Martin Callanan, has issued a statement overnight saying that it is now clear that Greece must leave the Eurozone:

“Are we witnessing the turning point in the Eurozone crisis? Surely Greece must now leave the Euro. It is clearly incapable of bringing its deficit under control. The Greek people simply do not wish to change the ways that put them in this situation in the first place. Even if Papandreou wins this battle, there is too much organised opposition for him to win the war. Democracy and the Eurozone are becoming antonymous. The Greek people should be entitled to set their own economic policy, but the cost of the retention of their democracy must be their exit from the Euro. German taxpayers are also sick of the Greeks constantly looking a gift horse in the mouth. Something has to give. If the Greeks wanted to control their economic destiny then they should have joined the UK in staying outside the single currency. President Sarkozy said last week that Greece should never have joined Euro. Now is time to correct the mistake.”

Callanan and Boris Johnson are willing and able to say what Cameron and Osborne do not.

Michael Gove was the man responsible for hitting the airwaves the morning after 81 Conservative MPs voted in favour of a referendum on the EU. Gove said that despite the significance of numbers, differences in policy were being "exaggerated", and that there was a consensus between backbenchers and the Cabinet "to change our relationship with the European Union".

Gove stressed his appreciation for differing points of view. He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, that despite not being in agreement with the rebels, he "respected their passion" and that "people like Adam Holloway, who resigned last night, did so as a matter of principle, and I respect them doing so". Rather than being a humiliating experience for the Government, and for Cameron personally, Gove said the debate had run contrary to a belief, and lack of faith about politicians "that people are always looking to see if they can shin up the greasy pole". Gove slammed Nick Robinson's assessments, who he said had "used all kinds of justifications to do with the vote; boundary reviews, and promotions" as examples of the rebellion's humiliation for the party.

On Cameron himself, Gove stated that the PM's desire "to refashion our relationship with the EU" was an issue of heart, not simply because it "was wrung out of him". He denied that the implementation of a three-line whip was embarrassing for Cameron, citing the fact that under a coalition dynamics change, and "parties need to compromise in the national interest".

Yesterday George Eustice proposed a compromise amendment on the EU debate scheduled for Monday. Bernard Jenkin MP has sent a public reply to him, rejecting his amendment:

"Dear George,

I think we all appreciate your and others’ efforts to build bridges here, but I feel I must make it clear to colleagues why I (and probably most colleagues) cannot support the amendment as drafted. I am copying this to backbench colleagues.

Firstly, David Nuttall’s motion sums up the EU question which faces the nation: do we carry on with EU integration on present terms of membership; or get out altogether; or renegotiate revised terms of membership? Your amendment seeks to narrow the terms of the debate by removing reference to one option which is clearly available to this country, which is to leave the EU. I personally don’t agree with an in-out referendum, but I recognise that that it is a legitimate option to be debated. The argument that this was not in our manifesto is irrelevant.

Second, you advance your amendment on the basis that it is consistent with the coalition agreement, but this is not relevant either. Both the coalition agreement and our manifesto have both been overtaken by events. Support for fiscal union in the Euro area was not in either – and would have never have been entertained if it had been proposed for either document. It is fiscal union which is leading to a fundamental change in the character of the EU, and which has given rise to the demand for this debate.

Third, as a supporter of renegotiation, why am I not tempted by your amendment? Because any remit for renegotiation must set out the objective of establishing a new relationship with our EU partners. For such a new relationship to be meaningful, there must be a fundamental change in that relationship. It must restore the basic democratic principle that the authority to pass laws should be democratically accountable to those who are affected by them. The powers delegated to the EU (or withdrawn) must in future be determined by Parliament, and not by the EU institutions acting autonomously. Without this, nothing much will change. The difficulty we now face is that the EU Treaties are now so all encompassing, and the institutions so assertive, that the exercise of merely nibbling back powers and competences here and there would not reverse the effect of the Lisbon Treaty on the UK, or Nice, or Amsterdam, or Maastricht, or the Single European Act, or address the fundamental problems which actually arise from the Treaty of Rome.

Finally, there is a great danger that Parliament will emerge from this looking very out of touch if the House is not to debate the original motion or at least something which reflects its spirit. The BBBC [Backbench Business Committee] adopted this motion in response to the e-petitions which demand an in-out EU referendum. Had the authors of the amendment approached the BBBC with their motion, it would not have been entertained by the BBBC, since there are no e-petitions behind it. If this amendment were to be selected, the debate and the vote which followed would be on the amendment, and not on the main motion – hardly an example of e-petitions working as they were intended!"

The list includes 46 Tory MPs. Tory MPs are highlighted in blue. The emboldened names were the first six signatories. [New names in CAPS including people who have since said they will support the motion.]

Here's a reminder of the motion due to be discussed on Thursday 27th OctoberMonday 24th October:

"The House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom

(a) should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;

(b) leave the European Union; or

(c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation."

Steve Baker

JOHN BARON

ANDREW BINGHAM

Mr Brian Binley

BOB BLACKMAN

Mr Peter Bone

Graham Brady

Andrew Bridgen

DAN BYLES

Mr Gregory Campbell

RONNIE CAMPBELL

Mr Douglas Carswell

Mr William Cash

Mr Christopher Chope

Mr James Clappison

Tracey Crouch

JOHN CRYER

David T. C. Davies

Philip Davies

Mr David Davis

NICK DE BOIS

Caroline Dinenage

Mr Nigel Dodds

JEFFREY DONALDSON

Nadine Dorries

Richard Drax

Frank Field

Mr Mark Field

Zac Goldsmith

Mr James Gray

CHRIS HEATON-HARRIS

Gordon Henderson

Kate Hoey

GEORGE HOLLINGBERY

Mr Philip Hollobone

Kelvin Hopkins

STEWART JACKSON

Mr Bernard Jenkin

CHRIS KELLY

Mr Edward Leigh

Dr Julian Lewis

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger

Mrs Anne Main

Karl McCartney

Jason McCartney

Dr William McCrea

JOHN MCDONNELL

PATRICK MERCER

Nigel Mills

Austin Mitchell

Anne Marie Morris

STEPHEN MOSLEY

DAVID MOWAT

SHERYL MURRAY

CAROLINE NOAKES

David Nuttall

MATTHEW OFFORD

Ian Paisley

Priti Patel

Andrew Percy

Mark Pritchard

Mark Reckless

Mr John Redwood

JACOB REES-MOGG

Mr Laurence Robertson

Andrew Rosindell

Jim Shannon

Mr Richard Shepherd

David Simpson

Henry Smith

Mr Mark Spencer

Bob Stewart

GARY STREETER

GRAHAM STRINGER

GISELA STUART

JULIAN STURDY

JUSTIN TOMLINSON

Mr Andrew Turner

Keith Vaz

Martin Vickers

MIKE WEATHERLEY

Heather Wheeler

Craig Whittaker

JOHN WHITTINGDALE

Sammy Wilson

Dr SARAH WOLLASTON

Please email tim@conservativehome.com if you know of other names we should add to this list.

Paul Goodman examines the internal Conservative politics of the motion over at ToryDiary.

The House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom

(a) should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;

(b) leave the European Union; or

(c) re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.

My source tells me that the motion is gathering considerable support from a large number of MPs and not "the usual suspects". The motion's value is that it is appealing to more moderate Eurosceptics as well as "out-ers".

By way of footnote readers might be interested in my suggestion - made to yesterday's BBC Analysis programme - that about a third of Tory MPs probably favour withdrawal and another third favour fundamental renegotiation. Radio 4's Ed Stourton writes about this here.